Just a small note : Microsoft hates UAC themselves so much that they’ve stripped it down for windows 7. FINALLY !!! It’s the most useless thing I’ve ever seen… (for eXPerienced users)
Let's say you are trying something that's not used by many people and it's not on CIS whitelist. You'll see a popups or few of them telling you - This might be a safe application to use, but this method is also used by malware and bla bla bal, if you're sure this app is safe - allow it. So in any case - CIS is right. If allowed a program to run and it was indeed safe - good. If you allowed it and it was malware - your fault - CIS gave you a popup.
So what's your sujestion ? Allow it anyway, good or bad :P?
You can always find specific cases. No system is perfect as long as it requires human attention. The point is, CIS provides balance (with the default settings) through a decent AV and few HIPS popups - of which many provides hints.
M$ did that ? :o NO WAY ! I think they just added a few more positions in the UAC.
I think I’ll make an experiminent, I’ll unistall Avast on my sisters PC or Avira on my moms PC and install CIS. And see how quickly it’ll drive them crazy or how quickly they lock themselves up ;D Both of them understand English well
Now, instead of picking about details, we need to put CIS in the large picture. That’s what it’s about. Sure Norton (or whatever top AV) may have good detection, surely (88)) better than CIS, but no one can deny that HIPS has some strength despite that it forces the user to make decisions. At least Defense+ DOES provide some hints. Also let’s not forget that Melih and his team is far from finished with CIS. They have much better detection AND usability in pipeline. This is hard to deny as Comodo HAS proven to have so much potential with CFP in the past and now CIS.
True. CIS did improve. But so did others. Melih was talking a lot about whitelisting and how COMODO was the first to use it, but Kaspersky and Norton implemented huge whitelists before CIS did. Norton impoved their firewall a lot and their firewall is completely silent. Kaspersky’s HIPS are quiter than CIS while it collects 300 out 340 on CLT test and with 2010 it’s even better.
I understand you like all these suites/AVs better than CIS (maybe because your system wasn’t really compatible with CIS? 88)). However, as much as I won’t claim that CIS is the best suite for everyone, nor will I take other claims/views for truths. Not without references to comprehensive tests. Detection tests may be hints, but as you put it yourself, hints are no guarantees.
My system is suited for CIS perfectly. The problem was BSOD’s and screen lockups - 10 people (me included) reported it. I got bashed, cos my system is vLited. Fine. I can live without CIS. But the same problem plagued people with normal XP and Vista installs ! Exact same problem. Comodo eventually fixed it. I tried it - works fine.
The Comodo AV actually freezes when I try to do an on demand scan on PChealth under Helpcenter data coll.
I removed the data coll. to see if it was the problem however it just stopped at the next one.
Yes, antivirus is outdated BUT your average user (non techie) would rely on this first (i.e no user prompt), Threatcast second (given a 50/50 chance of making the correct choice) and lastly HIPS (defense+) which could go either way. I believe CIS covers all areas well, depending on your experience.
Yes it is true that most people rely on their AVs too much but combine common sense, threatcast ratings and the info D+ gives with the knowledge that a person has on what he currently clicked on and you have a pretty secure system.
Yes most people will still click allow to everything they see but its your fault if a thief knocks on your door and you open up without checking who it is.
:comodorocks:
EDIT: I also believe in the fact that the first step to a secure system is learning about safe habits. Like for example making sure that applications and files come from a trusted vendor.
First… it’s not the tool… but the person using that tool.
I could say that all I need is LUA+SRP+UAC… This would leave Defense+ and other HIPS to a corner… Why? No learning curve. Normal computer use.
And, before someone comes in and say what if you install something you know is safe but has been infected in the source you downloaded it from? I’ll then say, wouldn’t I just treated it as Trusted Application with Defense+?
This is the weakest point of Defense+. If you treat something as trusted, it is trusted all the way.
An antimalware tool may detect infections… A behavior blocker… like SANA’s product, now part of AVG, would detect abnormal behavior and the user would know something is bad.
Defense+ is as beaten as dead cow…
There is no supramacy…
And, in the hands of the ones you folks call average users, but that I rather call casual users, a setup with LUA + SRP + UAC + antimalware tools + behavior blocker like AVG Identity Protection does a better job and a great one, I must say, against malware.
yo! O0 let’s stick to the topic.
the thread is about how CIS AV compared to other.
not about how Defense+ (or other HIPS) can or cannot protect inexperienced user.
